Displaying items by tag: Holcim

Bad news for both cement workers and local clinker production in Australia and New Zealand this week with the announcement of job cuts and planned closures of clinker plants. Holcim New Zealand has confirmed that around 120 jobs will go when its Westport cement plant closes in 2016 along with the rationalisation of a few management jobs when the company integrates its Australian and New Zealand businesses. Meanwhile, Boral announced that it will cut 28 jobs from its Maldon Cement plant in Australia when it ceases clinker production at the end of 2014.

With these planned closures cement production capacity in the antipodes will shrink by just over 1.5Mt/yr to around 7.5Mt/yr, a reduction of over 15% Alongside the drop in native cement production players are re-focusing on an import market.

The trend is highlighted by the fact that Boral's Maldon site will retain its grinding mill. Earlier in June 2014 it was reported that Vue Australia is planning to convert a brownfield site on Kooragang Island, New South Wales into a cement storage and transfer plant. In February 2014 Cockburn Cement cut 44 jobs at its Munster cement plant as it started to restructure its operation for grinding using imported clinker. Also in February 2014 Cement Australia, the joint-owned company between Holcim and HeidelbergCement, had a US$17m expansion of its cement loading and storage facility for processing at Osborne approved by local authorities.

Following its restructuring in 2013, which has seen clinker production cease at Waurn Ponds and soon to cease at Maldon, Boral reported that its cement revenues grew in its 2012 – 2013 financial year. This is likely to continue when the 2013 – 2014 year is reported in August 2014. Likewise, Adelaide Brighton reported growing revenues in 2013. Cement Australia reported growing cement sales year-on-year in the first quarter of 2014 following reduced sales in 2013.

All in all the local cement industry in Australia and New Zealand has taken quite a knock in recent years. Reasons for this have included a poor recovery for the local building materials market, high-energy costs, the Carbon Tax in Australia, competition concerns and the spectre of cheap clinker imports from East Asia undercutting everything. However the return to revenue and then profit suggest that the worst of the job cuts and clinker production shrinkage is over.

In this business environment, revelations such as a China Resources spending upwards of US$300,000 on golf are unlikely to garner sympathy for any measures that appear to reduce international competiveness for Australian industry. The current Australian government led by Tony Abbott is set to make good on its promise to repeal the Carbon Tax from July 2014. The environmental effects will be unclear given that the tax may have cut emissions from participating companies by 7%, falling from 342Mt in 2011 – 2012 to 321Mt in 2012 – 2013, according to the Investor Group on Climate Change. As is usual with localised carbon taxation or legislation, whether global emissions fell during this period or whether emissions grew in looser jurisdictions to compensate is hard to calculate. The trend towards clinker imports suggests that there may be a significant contribution from the latter.

The creation of Lafarge Africa, the clearance of the Cemex West acquisition by Holcim in Germany and the sale of Lafarge's assets in Ecuador all hint at the scale of business that LafargeHolcim will command when it comes into existence. Despite the media saturation of coverage on the merger the implications in developing markets are still worthwhile exploring, especially in Latin American and Africa.

In sub-Saharan Africa, Lafarge is merging its cement companies in Nigeria and South Africa to create Lafarge Africa. Analysts Exotix have described the move as, 'the birth of a leading player on a continental scale'. Indeed, if Lafarge wanted to grow Lafarge Africa to encompass its many other African cement producing subsidiaries it could hold at least 17 integrated cement plants (including plants in north Africa) with a cement production capacity of at least 40Mt/yr in 10 countries and infrastructure in others. That puts it head-to-head with Dangote's plans to meet 40Mt/yr by the end of 2014 through its many expansion projects. Following these two market leaders would come South African-based cement producer PPC with its expansion plans around the continent.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic in Latin America the Lafarge-Holcim merger threatens Cemex. Unlike in Africa where Lafarge has a ubiquitous but disparate presence, Lafarge and Holcim's cement assets are more evenly scattered around the Caribbean, Central and South America. In terms of cement production capacity Cemex and Lafarge-Holcim will both have around 30Mt/yr, with Cemex just in front. The next biggest cement producers in Latin America will be Votorantim (present mainly in Brazil) with just over 20Mt/yr and Cementos Argos (Columbia) with about the same. This includes some new acquisitions in the United States for the growing Columbian producer. In Ecuador Lafarge and Holcim held over 50% of the market share, hence the sale by Lafarge of its assets to Union Andina de Cementos for US$553m.

Depending on how well the merger integrates the two companies, corals the various subsidiaries and implements strategic thinking the merger could just create business as usual with little disruption to the existing order. Yet in both continents the merger has the opportunity to shake up and reinvigorate the cement markets as existing players suddenly discover serious new competition and react accordingly.

Africa has a population of 1.1bn and it had a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$2320/capita in 2013. South America had a population of 359m in 2010 and a GDP of US$8929/capita. This compares to US$27,250/capita in Europe and US$54,152/capita in the US. The economic development potential for each continent is humongous. Post-merger, LafargeHolcim will be first or second in line for some of this potential in Latin America and Africa.

The Brazilian cement industry took a knock last week when the competition watchdog Cade (Administrative Council for Economic Defence) confirmed its intention to issue the sector with fines worth a combined US$1.4bn.

Under the terms of the ruling, Votorantim will have to pay US$672m, Cimpor will pay US$133m, InterCement Brasil will pay US$108m, Itabira will pay US$184m, Holcim will pay US$227m and Itambé will have to pay US$39.4m. The companies involved will be forced on average to sell 24% of their assets. Votorantim, for example, will be compelled to divest 35% of its cement assets or 11Mt/yr of production capacity. In addition a fine of nearly US$2m is to be imposed on the cement associations ABCP and SNIC.

To give these figures some context, Votorantim reported a net profit of US$105m in 2013 across all its business lines including cement, metals, mining and pulp. The fine Cade wants to impose is over six times greater than this! A fine of this size will be a serious setback for Votorantim if it goes through. Votorantim's net revenue for its cement business in 2013 was about US$5.5bn. This places the fine at just over 10% of company annual turnover, a common upper limit for fines imposed by anti-competition authorities around the world. 10% of turnover, for example, is the maximum percentage fine that European Union competition regulators can impose.

Although hard to compare with the other Brazilian cement producers due to differences in financial reporting, the proposed fines seem equally tough on the other companies. Before the acquisition of Cimpor inflated its financial figures, InterCement reported a net revenue of US$1.2bn in 2011. This places its fine at 9% of annual turnover. Holcim's net sales in its Latin American region as a whole, including operations in Brazil, totalled US$3.73bn in 2013.

Both Holcim and Cimpor have issued corporate rebuttals to Cade insisting that they followed and still follow all the necessary competition laws. Both companies intend to fight the decision. Votorantim went further in its response saying that it considering the fine 'unjust and unprecedented' and it warned that the ruling would cripple any investments in the Brazilian cement sector. The ruling also forbids the company from opening new factories within the next five years, places limits on the company taking out new loans and prevents it from consolidating its market share.

Internationally, the Cade fine surpasses the US$1.1bn Competition Commission of India penalty imposed against 11 producers in India in 2013. Other recent anti-trust fines against the cement industry include a Euro80m fine in Poland that was upheld on appeal in 2013 and the US$19.3m Lafarge was charged in South Africa in 2012.

The prosecutors pointed out that work on public roads had been inflated by nearly US$8m. Overall they reckon that the cartel cost the Brazilian economy US$6.3bn. Examples likes this are unlikely to gain sympathy for the accused cement producers from a Brazilian public already angry about the amount of public money spent on building excessive sports stadiums and the like for the Football World Cup later in June 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016. In the meantime though – over to the lawyers.

India: JK Cement has announced that the Board of Directors has appointed Paul Hugentobler as an additional director in the Board, to hold office until the conclusion of the next Annual General Meeting. Previous to the appointment, Hugentobler served as an advisor to Holcim between 1 January 2014 to February 2014. Between 1999 – 2000 he was the CEO at Siam City Cement and between 1980 – 1994 Hugentobler was a project manager at Holcim Group Support.

Switzerland: Onne van der Weijde, Area Manager for India until 25 April 2014, and member of Holcim Senior Management, will leaves Holcim effective from 1 June 2014. The member of the Holcim Executive Committee, Bernard Terver, responsible for the Indian Subcontinent, will take over direct responsibility for the country.

Holcim released its first quarter results for 2014 this week and benefits of a merger seemed clear: both sales and profit were down. Net sales fell by 5.4% to Euro3.35bn and net income fell by 57.5% to Euro65.6m. However, Chief Financial Officer Thomas Aebischer was upbeat on meeting the regulatory requirements of any merger and the prospect of divestment opportunities.

This week we have a guest contributor - Andy Gboka, an analyst at Exotix LLP, a London-based broker specialised in Frontier markets – writing about the impact in Africa from the Lafarge-Holcim merger:

No change in Sub-Saharan Africa cement markets

Looking at (1) the location and size of the assets that both groups operate across the region but also (2) the expansion projects recently announced, we do not anticipate any upheaval in the competitive landscape, at least in the medium term.

Potential reshuffle of African assets

We identify Nigeria and Morocco as the main countries where the two companies are likely to reorganise their operations post-deal.

After the market excitement Lafarge / Holcim's price gains have averaged 9% since the announcement versus +8% the same day (04/04/14). We think it timely to discuss, from a competition angle, the likely impact on sector dynamics in Africa.

Starting with Sub-Saharan Africa where Lafarge and Holcim have been present for decades, the two groups have grown their output capability over time to reach a combined ~20.7Mt/yr. Holcim is a much smaller cement producer through its ~2.6Mt/yr in Ivory Coast, Guinea and Nigeria, whereas the French manufacturer is a regional leader with ~18.1Mt/yr capacity across 10 different countries. North African exposure paints a similar picture, as the Swiss company's installed capacity is ~9.6Mt/yr versus ~21.6Mt/yr for Lafarge (including their respective shareholdings in Lafarge Cement Egypt).

Although we do not believe the proposed merger will significantly alter Africa's competitive environment, business reorganisation is likely in:

(1) Nigeria. LafargeHolcim would control more than ~70% of the United Cement Company of Nigeria Ltd (UNICEM, 2.5Mt/yr in Calabar) which, in our view, is a suitable context for minorities' buyout.

(2) Morocco. More than ~50% of the industry's production capacity is controlled by the two players, a situation that may lead to asset disposals after review by the local competition commission.

Beyond the corporate implications, this announcement also puts into perspective the multiples investors are willing to pay for companies operating in Africa. Indeed, for 2014/2015 financial year the enterprise multiple (enterprise value / earnings before depreciation and amortisation) and price-to-book ratio for the main stocks listed in Nigeria and Kenya average 10.3x and 2.9x respectively, vs. 8.4x and 1.3x for LafargeHolcim (Bloomberg). While demand growth prospects in the teen digits or margins above ~25% (especially in Nigeria) would support a premium for the former names, we think the extent of that premium is questionable.

The best illustration is Dangote Cement, whose market capitalisation stands at ~US$25bn for total capacity estimated at 50 – 55Mt/yr by the 2016 financial year, relatively high when compared to the expected ~US$55bn market capitalisation for LafargeHolcim with (1) 427Mt/yr cement capacity globally and (2) ~60% of its revenue from emerging markets. This underpins our cautious stance on the sector.

Source: Andy Gboka, analyst at Exotix LLP (London-Based broker specialised in Frontier markets).

Andy Gboka will be speaking at the forthcoming Global CemTrader Conference, taking place in London on 2 -3 June 2014.

A lot has happened since the 4 April 2014 announcement that Lafarge and Holcim intend to become LafargeHolcim. There have been several related announcements from around the global cement industry this week, prompting some interesting discussion with respect to the future look of the industry.

Oyak Group, which operates a number of plants in Turkey, appears to be limbering up for LafargeHolcim-based acquisitions in the UK, the EU or Africa, with aims to become a regional player. Meanwhile, Lafarge has pulled out of talks regarding its proposed acquisition of the Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV) plant in Vallcarca, Spain, directly citing the merger as the reason for this. We have also seen Colombia's Cementos Argos purchase a grinding plant in French Guiana, which was jointly-owned by Lafarge and Holcim. Announced just a few days after the merger, this asset was presumably jettisoned in order to avoid future issues with local anti-monopoly authorities. Finally, ACC and Ambuja have announced that they would retain their separate identities in India after the merger.

This flurry of announcements is likely to be just the start of frenzied speculation as the competitors of Lafarge and Holcim work out what assets are most likely to be sold. So what about the multinationals, Cemex and HeidelbergCement?

Cemex certainly has cause for concern, weighed down by the debt that it took on in 2007 with the acquisition of Australia's Rinker. It is in a relatively weak position with respect to acquiring any LafargeHolcim divestments. Could it lose market share? HeidelbergCement, by contrast, has long extoled the virtues of its financial efficiency policies and its diverse and forward-looking geographical spread. It could snap up more strategic assets after the merger. While both of these multinationals will be wary of dealing with an enlarged competitor in LafargeHolcim, they have the opportunity to increase their market shares and both will move up one position in the global cement producer rankings.

It is likely to be the smaller players that have the most to gain from the shedding of LafargeHolcim's various assets, especially those that enjoy strong domestic markets and have cash at the ready. Oyak Group has already entered the ring but what if Nigeria's Dangote, Brazil's Votorantim, Colombia's Cementos Argos or Thailand's SCG go on a spending spree? Could one of these rise to become a new global cement multinational?

However, if we can expect a change anywhere it will be in Spain. Following reports in 2012 that Spanish cement production had crashed to its lowest levels since the 1960s jobs have been shed and profits have evaporated. In 2013 Holcim and Cemex agreed to combine all of their operations in Spain. Roughly, according to the Global Cement Directory 2014, cement production capacity in Spain breaks down as follows: CPV (23%), Cemex (18%), Lafarge (11%) and Holcim (10%). Letting the Cemex-Holcim deal happen, followed by the Lafarge-Holcim merger and the CPV Vallcarca purchase, would have led to a major headache for Spain's competition authorities, creating an entity with 43% production market share! Unsurprisingly the first casualty has been the CPV Vallcarca deal. Whatever happens, the next 18 months will be an interesting period for the global cement industry.

The news that Holcim and Lafarge are planning a merger should come as no great surprise to long-term observers of the industry. Such mega-mergers have been periodically mooted over the decades and have already come to pass.

Lafarge took its present form through many acquisitions, but it was the mega-merger with Blue Circle Industries that brought it to pre-eminence. That deal was hard fought, rapidly becoming a hostile takeover after the then-CEO of Blue Circle, Richard Haythornthwaite, decided that the amount that the CEO of Lafarge, Bertrand Coulomb, was offering for his company was not high enough.

A year of claims, counter-claims, offers, rebuffs and haggling ensued, leading to a higher offer that was eventually accepted by the Blue Circle board. However, as Lafarge was a Euro-denominated company and Blue Circle was resolutely British (and was thinking in UK pounds sterling) after exchange rate variations had been taken into account, Lafarge paid less after a year than it had offered in he first place. The British CEO got a big pay-off and went on to greater glory, having appeared to extract a great deal more money (in GB pounds) for his shareholders. Apparently they teach this as a case study in business schools.

Mega-mergers have also shaped other giants in the industry. For example Chichibu-Onoda and Sumitomo-Osaka came together to make Taiheiyo Cement and Ciments Français was added to Italcimenti, although in this last case they still retain their separate identities. Often the deals amount to an accretive takeover by one larger company of a smaller one, but transformative deals consisting of a 'merger' of 'equals' also happen in the cement industry, and with good reason. The merging of research efforts; the optimisation of management; the rationalisation of procurement strategies: all of these will immediately save plenty of money.

However, it's on the financial side that these larger merged companies can sometimes see the most benefit. The cost of borrowing money is inversely proportional to the size of the company (and of the sums involved); the colossal sums demanded by overpaid and greedy bankers will diminish in proportion if the sums involved are larger. So, the cost of borrowing money to be able to invest in takeovers or for capital expenditure will reduce as a proportion of overall cost.

There are other significant potential savings as well, from operational synergies, although these can be harder to quantify and - critically - harder to retain once the competition technocrats have run their slide rules over the proposed deal. They generally do not like too much of the market ending in the hands of too few players.

A good case in point is the recent mega of Tarmac and Lafarge in the UK. To allow the deal to take place the merged company was obliged to sell off one of its key assets, the Hope cement plant, which is now owned and operated by newcomer Hope Construction Materials. Even after the deal has been completed, the market regulator is considering the possibility of making the merged company sell additional facilities, something that strikes Global Cement as 'just not on.'

However, with operations in 90 countries, Lafarge and Holcim can expect to face competition scrutiny in at least 15 countries including Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, France, the UK, the US, Morocco and the Philippines. Meanwhile, in Serbia it has been reported the two companies have a combined market share of 97% across all their business lines!

Lafarge and Holcim have overlapping facilities and distribution networks in a number of countries, and any merged company will probably be required to sell some of them to its competitors. Other companies might be licking their lips at the prospect, as usual CRH is already being lined up in the Irish press, but the units will be sold at a market rate - and not a penny less. It might be that the merged company cannot control which facilities are sold, meaning that they might end up with a less than optimised system. Not so good after all.

If the deal goes through, it will create a Europe-based behemoth with a production capacity of over 200Mt, enough to retain a place on the global top 10 companies with the ever-rationalising and concatenating Chinese companies. When the news first broke we asked what might the new company called? We liked a short mash-up of the two names, like Lolcim (a humorous nod to today's 'youth-speak' perhaps) or Hafarge. However, the level of preparation backing the merger plan soon became clear from financial due-diligence right down to a new name: LafargeHolcim.

Yet for all this co-ordinated work from companies that were meant to be competitors until as recently as March 2014, we should remember what happened to the proposed BHP Billiton-Rio Tinto takeover. Valued at a high of US$170bn it shrivelled up as the global economy collapsed in 2008 amidst concerns from regulators. The idea may be out there but LafargeHolcim has a long way to go before it actually exists.

Worldwide: Lafarge and Holcim have released plans regarding who will lead their proposed merger, LafargeHolcim. The chairman of the new board will be Wolfgang Reitzle, the future chairman of Holcim. Bruno Lafont, chairman and CEO of Lafarge will become CEO of the new group and member of the board.

Thomas Aebischer, Holcim's CFO will become CFO of the new group. Jean-Jacques Gauthier, Lafarge's CFO will become chief integration officer of the new group. The Executive Committee will be formed from both Lafarge and Holcim management.

In order to ensure efficient execution of the merger, an integration committee will prepare the integration plan to be implemented straight after the closing of the transaction. Bernard Fontana, Holcim's existing CEO will remain in charge of Holcim until completion of the transaction. He will co-chair the integration committee.

The merger is expected to be completed in the first half of 2015 subject to shareholder approval and regulatory approval in the many countries that the two multinational building materials producers operate in.

Switzerland: Holcim's board of directors plan to nominate Jürg Oleas for election as a new board member at the company's annual general meeting on 29 April 2014.

Oleas, aged 56 and a Swiss national, holds an MSc in mechanical engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. He is the CEO of GEA Group AG, a Dusseldorf-based mechanical engineering company listed on Germany's MDAX stock index. Before joining the GEA Group, he spent nearly 20 years with ABB and the Alstom Group, where he held several management positions.

The Holcim board of directors also intend to propose the election of Wolfgang Reitzle as the new chairman. He will be proposed to succeed Rolf Soiron, who has been the chairman for the past 11 years and a member of the board of directors for 20 years.